ChibiHorsewoman Posted January 3, 2006 Author Share Posted January 3, 2006 [color=darkviolet][font=lucida calligraphy]I appologize ahead of time for my post quality since I'm really not well right now*pops Tums* I am really all for same sex marriages. If they love eachother then let's have a wedding. I don't think the government should be getting involved in personal matters like this. They don't get into the bedrooms of straight couples, so why are gay and lesbians any different? *sigh * That was one of my worst posts here ever! I'm gonna go hang myself with my computer cord![/color][/font] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boba Fett Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 [quote name='Drix D'Zanth'] Marriage doesn?t grant any citizens special rights or privileges, or favor citizens once acquired.[/quote] [color=green]Really?[/color] [quote name='Drix D'Zanth']The government is represented by her people, and as a member of that representative body (tiny fraction as it may be) I am obligated to voice my ethical opinion.[/quote] [color=green]I?m not sure how discrimination is ethical.[/color] [quote name='Drix D'Zanth']I?m not denying anybody the right to go out and find a member of the opposite sex and get married, homosexual or not.[/quote] [color=green]Oh, but I thought...[/color] [quote name='Drix'] So, I?ll tell you why this topic is important to myself: someone opposed to both homosexuality, homosexual marriage, and in favor of homosexual couples adopting.[/quote] [color=green]Oh, but then you clarify by saying...[/color] [quote name='Drix']Gay couples can get married in certain religious establishments and churches.[/quote] [color=green]So what you?re saying is that homosexuals can go pretend to get married, and that should be enough? It seems to me like you should be more opposed to religious gay marriage, being that religion is the basis for your opposition, than governmental recognition of union.[/color] [quote name='Drix D'Zanth] Besides, if they wish to get married in their private lives (as far as a cultural marriage or religious marriage is concerned) outside the [b]public[/b'] (key word! key word!) arena; who am I to deny that?[/quote] [color=green]Why don?t those heterosexuals keep their marriage out of the public arena? We can just let them get married in their private lives, too.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 Would it really matter to someone who's openly against gay marriage if Gay's got married??? I mean it's not a big deal to anything and if it doesn't have affects on the person in general then there's no reason for opposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunfallE Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 [COLOR=DarkOliveGreen]Looks like there?s been quite the debate going on here. I?ll just skip that and answer the general questions; otherwise I?ll be here for an hour responding to everything. ^_~[/COLOR][QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][font=lucida calligraphy][color=darkviolet]I'm asking people's opinions on homosexuality. Is it learned or inherited? Is it moral? Does it prevent you from being a good parent? Should gay couples be allowed to adopt? Should same sex marriages be legalized? Please share your MATURE well thought out opinions. [/color][/font][/QUOTE][COLOR=DarkOliveGreen]I think that homosexuality can be both learned and inherited. I don?t mean to be confusing, but even though I believe it is primarily inherited I also believe that there are those out there who choose to be that way or have learned to be that way from following the example of others. Though I suppose those who choose to be that way probably aren?t being true to themselves. I?ve run into lots of gay guys who tried to follow what they learned and got married to women, but it didn?t change the fact that they were gay and for many of them they ended up divorced. I hear so many arguments that being gay is immoral and I just can?t agree with it. No matter how you look at it the documents people use to back up their claim that being gay is immoral were written by a human at one point and it?s foolish to assume that just because something is written it must be true. I am referring to any religious text or material that claims? being gay is wrong. In my opinion one?s sexual preference doesn?t affect one?s ability to be a good parent. I?ve seen so many horrible parents that were straight and not gay. If the assumption that being gay meant you were a bad parent then why are straight people bad parents as well? I think that gay couples should be allowed to adopt. If they have the financial means and have passed any checks that are required then by all means they should be able to adopt children. As for marriage, I definitely think they should be allowed to get married. I really don?t understand why so many people object to it. If I were to follow that logic then we should ban all types of marriage since so many religions like to think that unless you are married by their traditions you are living in sin. It just seems to me that denying them marriage is just another form of discrimination. I could spend hours discussing the things that at one time was considered unthinkable and wrong and yet today it is considered normal. [/COLOR] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eleanor Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 [QUOTE=SunfallE][COLOR=DarkOliveGreen]Looks like there?s been quite the debate going on here. I?ll just skip that and answer the general questions; otherwise I?ll be here for an hour responding to everything. ^_~[/COLOR][COLOR=DarkOliveGreen]I think that homosexuality can be both learned and inherited. I don?t mean to be confusing, but even though I believe it is primarily inherited I also believe that there are those out there who choose to be that way or have learned to be that way from following the example of others. Though I suppose those who choose to be that way probably aren?t being true to themselves. I?ve run into lots of gay guys who tried to follow what they learned and got married to women, but it didn?t change the fact that they were gay and for many of them they ended up divorced. [/COLOR][/QUOTE] [color=darkslateblue] Although I look foolish for saying so (seeing as I have no authentic documents or anything), I agree with you. I used to think that homosexuality was a purely genetic thing, but now I've come to think that it can also be something that one will adopt because of psychological means. It could be because of past experiences or whatever, but, simply put, I think people can 'choose' to become gay. At the same time, I tend to think that this process would be subconscious rather than... you wake up one day and decide that you're gay. I also wanted to bring up something new to see if anyone was interested. A lot of studies has shown that there are animals that are gay. [/color] [I]New York -- Roy and Silo, two chinstrap penguins at the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan, are completely devoted to each other. For nearly six years now, they have been inseparable. They exhibit what in penguin parlance is called "ecstatic behavior": That is, they entwine their necks, they vocalize to each other, they have sex. Silo and Roy are, to anthropomorphize a bit, gay penguins. When offered female companionship, they have adamantly refused it. And the females aren't interested in them, either. At one time, the two seemed so desperate to incubate an egg together that they put a rock in their nest and sat on it, keeping it warm in the folds of their abdomens, said their chief keeper, Rob Gramzay. Finally, he gave them a fertile egg that needed care to hatch. Things went perfectly, and a chick, Tango, was born. For the next 2 1/2 months they raised Tango, keeping her warm and feeding her food from their beaks until she could go out into the world on her own. Gramzay is full of praise. "They did a great job," he said. Roy and Silo are hardly unusual. Indeed, scientists have found homosexual behavior throughout the animal world. This growing body of science has been increasingly drawn into charged debates about homosexuality in American society, on subjects from gay marriage to sodomy laws, despite reluctance from experts in the field to extrapolate from animals to humans. Gay groups argue that if homosexual behavior occurs in animals, it is natural, and therefore the rights of homosexuals should be protected. On the other hand, some conservative religious groups have condemned the same practices in the past, calling them "animalistic." But if homosexuality occurs among animals, does that necessarily mean it is natural for humans? And that raises a familiar question: If homosexuality is not a choice, but a result of natural forces that cannot be controlled, can it be immoral? The open discussion of homosexual behavior in animals is relatively new. "There has been a certain cultural shyness about admitting it," said Frans de Waal, whose 1997 book, "Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape" (University of California Press), unleashed a torrent of discussion about animal sexuality. Bonobos, apes closely related to humans, are wildly energetic sexually. Studies show that whether observed in the wild or in captivity, nearly all are bisexual and nearly half their sexual interactions are with the same sex. Females have been observed to engage in homosexual activity almost hourly. Before his own book, "American scientists who investigated bonobos never discussed sex at all," said de Waal, director of the Living Links Center of the Yerkes Primate Center at Emory University in Atlanta. "Or they sometimes would show two females having sex together, and would say, 'The females are very affectionate.' " Then in 1999, Bruce Bagemihl published "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" (St. Martin's Press), one of the first books of its kind to provide an overview of scholarly studies of same-sex behavior in animals. Bagemihl said homosexual behavior had been documented in some 450 species. Last summer, the book was cited by the American Psychiatric Association and other groups in a "friend of the court" brief submitted to the Supreme Court in Lawrence vs. Texas, a case challenging a Texas anti-sodomy law. The court struck down the law. In his book, Bagemihl describes homosexual activity in a broad spectrum of animals. He asserts that while same-sex behavior is sometimes found in captivity, it is actually seen more frequently in studies of animals in the wild. Among birds, for instance, studies show that 10 to 15 percent of female western gulls in some populations in the wild are homosexual. Among mammals, male and female bottlenose dolphins frequently engage in homosexual activity, both in captivity and in the wild. Homosexuality is particularly common among young male dolphin calves. One male may protect another that is resting or healing from wounds inflicted by a predator. When one partner dies, the other may search for a new male mate. Male and female rhesus macaques, a type of monkey, also exhibit homosexuality in captivity and in the wild. Males are affectionate to each other, touching, holding and embracing. Females smack their lips at each other and play games like hide-and-seek, peekaboo and follow the leader. And both sexes mount members of their own sex. Some scientists say homosexual behavior in animals is not necessarily about sex. Marlene Zuk, a professor of biology at UC Riverside and author of "Sexual Selections: What We Can and Can't Learn About Sex From Animals" (University of California Press, 2002), notes that scientists have speculated that homosexuality may have an evolutionary purpose, ensuring the survival of the species. By not producing their own offspring, homosexuals may help support or nurture their relatives' young. "That is a contribution to the gene pool," she said. Janet Mann, a professor of biology and psychology at Georgetown University who has studied same-sex behavior in dolphin calves, says their homosexuality "is about bond formation, not about being sexual for life." She said studies show that adult male dolphins form long-term alliances, sometimes in large groups. As adults, they cooperate to entice a single female and keep other males from her. Sometimes they share the female, or they may cooperate to help one male. "Male-male cooperation is extremely important," Mann said. The homosexual behavior of the young calves "could be practicing" for that later, crucial adult period, she added. Scientists warn about drawing conclusions about humans. "For some people, what animals do is a yardstick of what is and isn't natural," Vasey said. "They make a leap from saying if it's natural, it's morally and ethically desirable." But he added: "Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn't be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don't take care of the elderly. I don't particularly think that should be a platform for closing down nursing homes." What the animal studies do show, Zuk observed, is that "sexuality is a lot broader term than people want to think." "You have this idea that the animal kingdom is strict, old-fashioned Roman Catholic," she said, "that they have sex just to procreate." In bonobos, she noted: "you see expressions of sex outside the period when females are fertile. Suddenly, you are beginning to see that sex is not necessarily about reproduction." [/I] - [url]http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/07/MNG3N4RAV41.DTL[/url] [color=darkslateblue]As of this point, my instinctive opinion on the whole thing is that since animals do it, it is a natural thing. However, I would also understand the other viewpoints. Ideas?[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShinje Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 [quote name='Brsil']That the messages between the OT and the NT are almost completely different. Nowhere in the NT do you see stories about God smiting some foolish bastard, just like how Jesus doesn't exactly get medieval on anyone's *** when he's preaching to the lepers or healing the possessed. Granted, some of what JC was saying was pretty irrelevant by today's standards, bordering more on Communism/Socialism than an actual, workable life philosophy, but I think even in light of that, it's incredibly worthwhile to see the process throughout the Bible.[/quote] [color=crimson] Another good point there, Alex, I will answer as best I can. The OT and the NT are fundamentally different, from a judgement perspective. In the OT, we see God handing out plagues and smitings, and then we see Jesus handign out love and forgiveness in the NT, why? Does God suddenly decide to change his ways? In a way, yes, in a way, no. The difference between the books OT and NT are dramatic, and I believe we can attribute that to the sacrifice of Jesus, who then became the only mediator between us and God, thus setting off the church age, or the age of grace. The difference? The age of the Torah, or OT, required strict observance to it's laws and the sacrifice of animals to cover people's sins. Entire cities were destroyed and wiped out because they were totally against god and set agaisnt his ways, therefore they never sacrificed to God and shed the sacrificial blood to cover them. Judgements were frequently swift because these people and nations had no mediator between them, who was the High Priest, the only person clean enough to enter the holy of holies, and communicate directly with God. In some instances, God used rebelious nations, such as Egypt, to capture and set Israel straight, placing Israel in captivity for hundreds of years. This was also a punsihment of God for disobedience. Int he NT, however, is the church age, a time of preperation for the coming government of God, a time when al nations can try their godless governemnts and fail and a time when people can choose to follow God or not. and a time when entire cities won't be smited for their disobedience to God. God is being patient, he is allowing peopkle to choose his son, who died for them, or die themselves. There is less emphasis on strict obedience to the Torah, and more on living with a presonal relationship with Jesus and living your life for him. Judgements come at the end of the church age, rather than the perennial judgements we see in the OT This is because, in the church age, we are all covered by grace and it is our acceptance of thsi grace that determines our futures. We have our lives to accept that grace and coem to Jesus (akthough it should be noted that no-one knows when their life may end, so it is wise to choose Jesus now, and be saved, rather that say "I'll wait untill I'm old and wrinky!".[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarAngel Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 I Dont Know Were I Stand On The Whole Gay Marriage Thing But Its Not Really That Much Of A Big Deal As People Make It Out To Be In My Opinon Its Ok To Be Gay Just Not To Be Married And Gay Because In All Religons Mairrage Is Based On A Man And A Woman Vowing Eternal Love Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChibiHorsewoman Posted January 4, 2006 Author Share Posted January 4, 2006 [quote name='WarAngel']In My Opinon Its Ok To Be Gay Just Not To Be Married And Gay Because In All Religons Mairrage Is Based On A Man And A Woman Vowing Eternal Love[/quote] [color=darkviolet][font=lucida calligraphy]Tsk tsk war angel not all religions. Most branches of Wicca and a lot of practitioners of other religions define marriage as a union between two people who love eachother I believe that the defination of marriage is a union between two people who love eachother because we can't control who we love. If we did there wouldn't be a thread about homosexuality. I'll decide my own fate, Chibi Horsewoman[/color][/font] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
different ki Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 My opinion is that all people are bisexual. Some just lean much more in one direction than others. The only question is how much it takes to get you to switch sides. For most people, only a serious inescapable situation will do it, like for example being cut off from the opposite sex for years. That's how you explain men in prison, and I believe priests molesting boys (seminaries are all male) as well. I also know a disproportionate number of lesbians who were sexually abused by a man as children. I think a very small number of people are equally attracted to both sexes, but most people need a serious push to go against their natural inclinations, whether those are heterosexual or homosexual. But just because I believe that sexual orientation can be changed sometimes doesn't mean I think gays shouldn't have equal rights. We are long past the point where everyone needs to have babies to ensure the survival of the species so it doesn't matter who someone decides to love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drix D'Zanth Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Alex, it?s good to see you?ve joined the discussion! I feel bad; because replying to this might take up the time I would have used to reply to Dave?s thread. It was a long day at work today, so I?m going to give you a reply that doesn?t really do your intensive post justice. The few things I do end up quoting are the biggest problems I have with your ideas. Now, I hate to draw this into a Bible discussion because that sounds like we may be getting off topic. So if you want to carry this discussion into another thread or PM? by all means . And please forgive me; I have chopped up your post quite a bit to get to the key points. [QUOTE=Brasil] But I think it's relevant here, in that there was never much "truth" in the Bible, even in the so-called "word of God." If you closely examine the text, when you get down to the nitty-gritty, most of that book is completely subjective. An unchanging truth would generally imply that the said truth is objective and relevant all the time. And that's just not the case. I mean, when you really consider it...how much "truth" is there in the Bible? When broken down into percentages, most of it is either conjecture, second-hand testimony, posthumous narrative assembled from bits and pieces of scattered documentation that by today's standards of modern law and forensics would be classified as completely unreliable in the determination of facts and dates, artificial socio-cultural rule-sets transcribed by the cultural (read: tribal) leaders of the time (some of whom could barely read or write from what I've read), and so on. [/QUOTE] There are parables, and stories. There are examples of unyielding faith (Abraham, Job) and recommitting to God?s path (Nehemiah, Moses). There are passages in the bible that refer to money, love, sacrifice, discipline. Some are indeed meant in the preservation of a somewhat isolated culture, and some are deeply rooted moral laws (the golden rule, the ten commandments). I would enjoy seeing the number crunch by the people who are providing you with the idea that the Bible is an unreliable transcription. Obviously you can quantify much of life. But faith, and faith that the Bible is what it says it is, isn?t something that you can really measure. We have a truly unfortunate predicament in that you and I differ on our belief of the Bible. I would take it as it is, and you choose to believe a conflicting second-hand source. Really, until you start reading the Bible? I really mean [i]reading[/i] it rather than taking it out of context? it is really fruitless to debate it. [QUOTE=Brasil] That the messages between the OT and the NT are almost completely different. In the OT, you see that. You see those rules at work, you see them result in the complete obliteration of entire cities. You see just how dickish God can be. Unchanging truth? Not at all. Jesus represents a dramatic ideological reversal of 99% of what we heard in the OT. [/QUOTE] These three separated passages seem to represent the cumulative message of this post, I think. The life and death of Jesus represents a big change in the Bible because it is really the most significant event of all time, Biblically. The idea of God as a merciless and unkind being in the Old Testament is utterly wrong and truly an uneducated assumption about the text. The coming of Jesus was prophesied far before he was born as the moment God felt the world needed him- for whatever Gods reasons. Before the coming of Christ, God shepherded and cared for all who chose him and followed him. He saved his people on countless occasions and blessed his faithful servants. He instructed his people on how to live their lives in a truly tumultuous time (as ?common sense? was lacking everywhere in that era). The God of the Old Testament isn?t any more ?wrathful? than Jesus. Sure, Jesus didn?t destroy a wicked city (a city that God, according to the Bible, could find not a single good person in)- but if you read his story, he did draw a solid moral line between a right and a wrong (the bankers in the temple, the temple leaders). He was sent to correct a message of forgiveness that had been perverted by the people before him, however. [QUOTE=Brasil] I think two thousand years has certainly wearied Jesus' original sacrifice, because virtually nobody I see in the public arena seemingly gives two sh*ts about that anymore. Plus, one shouldn't devote themselves to a religion because of a sacrifice one man made to absolve others of sin. That is basically what The Passion of the Christ was: one huge guilt trip. [/QUOTE] I don?t devote my life only because of Jesus? sacrifice. I don?t even devote it because I?m guilty of acting immorally sometimes. I devote my life to God because I believe that we were all created to share a truly personal relationship with God, both in this life and eternally with him in the next. Ask yourself why you feel guilty, Alex? Why are you asking the movie?s message to justify your guilt? Do you feel as if though you are on uncertain terms spritually? You took away the wrong message from that movie. Here?s the kicker: -We may all be guilty of a million things, but we are all forgiven if we [i]just[/i] ask for it. [QUOTE=Brasil] Again, how many people actually quote the Ten Commandments these days, or refer to them explicitly, or even subtly draw from them? Not many. And how many of those Ten Commandments are all that relevant today, anyway? ?[/b](pardon the cut)[/b] Or is that kind of thought process more indicative of just pure, straight-up lack of common sense? [/QUOTE] Sociology is our friend in this matter. It?s true that many cultures have established moral guidelines besides the ones influenced by Christianity. But why are rules made? Because someone has broken them. And why did God send Moses the ten commandments? Because his people had and were going to break those rules. Because sometimes it takes more than a moral conscience to realize that adultery is wrong. Some people simply need to be told ?adultery is wrong?. And when I am asked why I am not a liar, I can reply, ?Because it wouldn?t be the right thing to do. I know this because it is written in his Word.? God help me, because the temptations of sex are great enough despite not being married. Sometimes God can act as the last moral witness, the last consideration before deciding not to do something- like lie, or steal. At least I have a guide. [QUOTE=Brasil] Or what about the "No Idolatry" clause? By the definition in there...we should kill Shigeru Miyamoto. We should eliminate all fanboys and fangirls. We need to have public exterminations of all things Pokemon, and stone to death every child who was obsessed over the Pokemon card craze from a while back. [/QUOTE] Last time I checked, no one is worshipping Pokemon. It?s fine to like something, but not okay to worship it. And why would I stone a pokemon loving fanboy or try to snuff out the paraphernalia? I wouldn?t do that with a Wiccan, or a Muslim. Once again, you are really taking something you know very little about out of context. Again I hate driving this topic off course, so if you really want to continue this discussion in here; please agree to disagree on our opposing viewpoints of the Bible. I am going to look at it as my ethical guideline, and you will not. *shrug* [quote name='Boba Fett][color=green]Really?[/color'] [/quote] Well, you caught me. What I?m trying to drive at is that the rights marriage does grant a couple doesn?t elevate them to a higher status as citizens. An unmarried person?s contribution to society is neither greater nor lesser than the bearing of a married person. See what I mean? [QUOTE=Boba Fett][color=green] [color=green]I?m not sure how discrimination is ethical.[/color] [/QUOTE] You believe that you are [i]right[/i] and I believe that I am [i]right[/i]- isn?t that what ethics is about (what is right and wrong)? As far as discrimination is concerned, it is not an unjust discrimination. When I look at a homosexual couple and I look at a heterosexual couple, I see the heterosexual couple (for the purposes of this example) as ?married?, because they meet the requirements. Our government looks at a rich person and a poor person and puts them in a tax bracket. We look at a thirteen year old and a sixteen year old and see [b]one[/b] person who is allowed to drive. [QUOTE=Boba Fett][color=green] [color=green]So what you?re saying is that homosexuals can go pretend to get married, and that should be enough? It seems to me like you should be more opposed to religious gay marriage, being that religion is the basis for your opposition, than governmental recognition of union.[/color] [/QUOTE] Don?t get me wrong. I don?t agree with religious gay marriage any more than civil gay marriage. But religious gay marriage is a private affair, and as any private affair is concerned- I reserve my judgment, I will not publicly oppose it. However, you are implying we should change a very public institution, and I am obligated to react. As far as a ?pretend? marriage is concerned, you should really ask yourself when you truly feel like you will have married that special person in your life. As far as I?m concerned, it will be at the alter, not the courthouse- I don?t need the government to tell me when I?m married. [QUOTE=Boba Fett][color=green] [color=green]Why don?t those heterosexuals keep their marriage out of the public arena? We can just let them get married in their private lives, too.[/color][/QUOTE] A fair argument! But that?s not what the gay community wants. They want to take their private interpretation of marriage and [i]change[/i] our public interpretation. They simply want to change the entire definition of marriage, which is why we aren?t debating civil unions or specific rights. Which is one of my biggest concerns- if it is fundamentally changed now, why not change marriage to accommodate everyone?s interpretation of what it means to be married? I implore you, then, fight to remove marriage from the public arena. By all means, oppose it. A quick add on: [QUOTE=Lunox][color=darkslateblue] Although I look foolish for saying so (seeing as I have no authentic documents or anything), I agree with you. I used to think that homosexuality was a purely genetic thing, but now I've come to think that it can also be something that one will adopt because of psychological means. It could be because of past experiences or whatever, but, simply put, I think people can 'choose' to become gay. At the same time, I tend to think that this process would be subconscious rather than... you wake up one day and decide that you're gay. I also wanted to bring up something new to see if anyone was interested. A lot of studies has shown that there are animals that are gay. [/color] [I]New York -- Roy and Silo, two chinstrap penguins at the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan, are completely devoted to each other. For nearly six years now, they have been inseparable. They exhibit what in penguin parlance is called "ecstatic behavior": That is, they entwine their necks, they vocalize to each other, they have sex. Silo and Roy are, to anthropomorphize a bit, gay penguins. When offered female companionship, they have adamantly refused it. And the females aren't interested in them, either. At one time, the two seemed so desperate to incubate an egg together that they put a rock in their nest and sat on it, keeping it warm in the folds of their abdomens, said their chief keeper, Rob Gramzay. Finally, he gave them a fertile egg that needed care to hatch. Things went perfectly, and a chick, Tango, was born. For the next 2 1/2 months they raised Tango, keeping her warm and feeding her food from their beaks until she could go out into the world on her own. Gramzay is full of praise. "They did a great job," he said. Roy and Silo are hardly unusual. Indeed, scientists have found homosexual behavior throughout the animal world. This growing body of science has been increasingly drawn into charged debates about homosexuality in American society, on subjects from gay marriage to sodomy laws, despite reluctance from experts in the field to extrapolate from animals to humans. Gay groups argue that if homosexual behavior occurs in animals, it is natural, and therefore the rights of homosexuals should be protected. On the other hand, some conservative religious groups have condemned the same practices in the past, calling them "animalistic." But if homosexuality occurs among animals, does that necessarily mean it is natural for humans? And that raises a familiar question: If homosexuality is not a choice, but a result of natural forces that cannot be controlled, can it be immoral? The open discussion of homosexual behavior in animals is relatively new. "There has been a certain cultural shyness about admitting it," said Frans de Waal, whose 1997 book, "Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape" (University of California Press), unleashed a torrent of discussion about animal sexuality. Bonobos, apes closely related to humans, are wildly energetic sexually. Studies show that whether observed in the wild or in captivity, nearly all are bisexual and nearly half their sexual interactions are with the same sex. Females have been observed to engage in homosexual activity almost hourly. Before his own book, "American scientists who investigated bonobos never discussed sex at all," said de Waal, director of the Living Links Center of the Yerkes Primate Center at Emory University in Atlanta. "Or they sometimes would show two females having sex together, and would say, 'The females are very affectionate.' " Then in 1999, Bruce Bagemihl published "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" (St. Martin's Press), one of the first books of its kind to provide an overview of scholarly studies of same-sex behavior in animals. Bagemihl said homosexual behavior had been documented in some 450 species. Last summer, the book was cited by the American Psychiatric Association and other groups in a "friend of the court" brief submitted to the Supreme Court in Lawrence vs. Texas, a case challenging a Texas anti-sodomy law. The court struck down the law. In his book, Bagemihl describes homosexual activity in a broad spectrum of animals. He asserts that while same-sex behavior is sometimes found in captivity, it is actually seen more frequently in studies of animals in the wild. Among birds, for instance, studies show that 10 to 15 percent of female western gulls in some populations in the wild are homosexual. Among mammals, male and female bottlenose dolphins frequently engage in homosexual activity, both in captivity and in the wild. Homosexuality is particularly common among young male dolphin calves. One male may protect another that is resting or healing from wounds inflicted by a predator. When one partner dies, the other may search for a new male mate. Male and female rhesus macaques, a type of monkey, also exhibit homosexuality in captivity and in the wild. Males are affectionate to each other, touching, holding and embracing. Females smack their lips at each other and play games like hide-and-seek, peekaboo and follow the leader. And both sexes mount members of their own sex. Some scientists say homosexual behavior in animals is not necessarily about sex. Marlene Zuk, a professor of biology at UC Riverside and author of "Sexual Selections: What We Can and Can't Learn About Sex From Animals" (University of California Press, 2002), notes that scientists have speculated that homosexuality may have an evolutionary purpose, ensuring the survival of the species. By not producing their own offspring, homosexuals may help support or nurture their relatives' young. "That is a contribution to the gene pool," she said. Janet Mann, a professor of biology and psychology at Georgetown University who has studied same-sex behavior in dolphin calves, says their homosexuality "is about bond formation, not about being sexual for life." She said studies show that adult male dolphins form long-term alliances, sometimes in large groups. As adults, they cooperate to entice a single female and keep other males from her. Sometimes they share the female, or they may cooperate to help one male. "Male-male cooperation is extremely important," Mann said. The homosexual behavior of the young calves "could be practicing" for that later, crucial adult period, she added. Scientists warn about drawing conclusions about humans. "For some people, what animals do is a yardstick of what is and isn't natural," Vasey said. "They make a leap from saying if it's natural, it's morally and ethically desirable." But he added: "Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn't be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don't take care of the elderly. I don't particularly think that should be a platform for closing down nursing homes." What the animal studies do show, Zuk observed, is that "sexuality is a lot broader term than people want to think." "You have this idea that the animal kingdom is strict, old-fashioned Roman Catholic," she said, "that they have sex just to procreate." In bonobos, she noted: "you see expressions of sex outside the period when females are fertile. Suddenly, you are beginning to see that sex is not necessarily about reproduction." [/I] - [url]http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/07/MNG3N4RAV41.DTL[/url] [color=darkslateblue]As of this point, my instinctive opinion on the whole thing is that since animals do it, it is a natural thing. However, I would also understand the other viewpoints. Ideas?[/color][/QUOTE] It's really good that you brought this up. Having studied biology rather intensely has really helped me with this dillema. Sex is sometimes approached in nature differently than as a purely reproductive action. Dolphins have sex for fun (often in the wake of large ships, where the sensation of churning water acts as an aphrodisiac), and some monkeys rub their friends genitals as a bonding activity (chimps) or as a sign of respect (baboons). And don't even get started on Bonbo monkeys. I have been able to work with bonbos in my ecology class and they are the horniest SOBs you'll ever meet. They have more sex than any creature on earth and would screw anything that would move if possible. Attempted rape by bonobo is amusingly commonplace by any humans interacting with them. Penguins are special because they are some of the few monogamous creatures. The sad fact is that these two gay penguins believe they have found a female. Quite simply, they are confused. It is endearing that they have been able to have raised Tango- a feat that would only be possible in captivity as it is the female who goes out to catch food while the male incubates (if both were males, and without a continuous supply of fish by the zookeepers, neither would leave the egg and the hatchling would inevitably starve). When you really get down to the nitty gritty, brass tax (haha), we can't really be expected to draw our moral guidelines parallel to even our closest known primate ancestors. And we can't conclude that because our animal friends have exhibited this behavior, it is a genetic trait in humans too. Because as far as we know (and I see that we both agree, here) it isn't genetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soliel Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 [COLOR=GREEN][font= Comic San MS]Well, since this is a major facet in my life, I must comment. To answer CHW's original questions: I think that homosexuality is a born trait, not inherited. The only [b]choice[/b] made it wether to accept who you are or to hide it. In my personal opinion, I think it's a greater [i]sin[/i] to falsify who you really are, which, if you believe that God created us, would be an insult to God. It's like saying, "Thanks for the great gift, but I don't this part. I'm just going to keep it in the closet because I'm embarassed by it." I say there is nothing morally wrong with something that doesn't hurt anyone. As for the issue of good parenting, sexual oriantation has nothing to do with wether a person is a good parent. So on that note, same sex couples should be treated exactly the same as heterosexual couples in determining acceptable parenting. Judging someone by their sexual orientation is just like judgine someone on terms of race, it's just stupid. And same sex marrage doesn't effect those not involved; if a leisbian cupple in LA got married, a nun in Boston wouldn't drop dead as a result. Now I'm the treasurer of my college's newly formed Gay Straight Alliance, and we also happen to be located smack dab in the middle of the "Bible Belt" so I know a lot of the arguments people use against homosexuality. Would you people please stop acting like religion was the driving force in our country's founding. The words "under God" were [b][i]ADDED[/i][/b] to the Pledge in the 1950's, during the Cold War. This was just another blind attack on communism. Also people may use the Bible to support their arguments against homosexuality, but slave owners used to use it to support slavery, and abusive parents also use it to support child abuse.[/font][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brasil Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 [quote name='Drix D'Zanth']Alex, it?s good to see you?ve joined the discussion![/quote] Oh, no worries. I shant be staying long, because Guild Wars calls me. Probably this reply and that's it from me. [quote]There are parables, and stories. There are examples of unyielding faith (Abraham, Job) and recommitting to God?s path (Nehemiah, Moses). There are passages in the bible that refer to money, love, sacrifice, discipline. Some are indeed meant in the preservation of a somewhat isolated culture, and some are deeply rooted moral laws (the golden rule, the ten commandments). I would enjoy seeing the number crunch by the people who are providing you with the idea that the Bible is an unreliable transcription. Obviously you can quantify much of life. But faith, and faith that the Bible is what it says it is, isn?t something that you can really measure. We have a truly unfortunate predicament in that you and I differ on our belief of the Bible. I would take it as it is, and you choose to believe a conflicting second-hand source. Really, until you start reading the Bible? I really mean [i]reading[/i] it rather than taking it out of context? it is really fruitless to debate it.[/quote] The number crunch came from me, actually. Jordan, dearest, do you really think I'd be having this discussion (and proposing this thesis) if I hadn't familiarized myself with the Bible, read it extensively, etc? Go through the Bible and find the actual truth, and make sure it merely isn't ideological discourse. For example, stories about unyielding faith are entirely subjective; they do not utilize unchanging truths. Recommitting to God's path, also subjective. I'll tell you what [i]is[/i] an objective, unchanging truth in the Bible: that there once may have been two cities in the ancient Middle East that were engulfed in what some archaeologists believe could have been a massive subterranean gas reservoir ignition spurned on by an earthquake. When there's mention of environmental disasters (fires, floods, etc), that's usually a key that something actually happened. All else is basically ideological conjecture. The rules, subjective and conjecture. The discourse on love, money, etc., primarily subjective ideologies. When you really look at the stories in there...not much is actual truth. When you really examine the stories within the framework of the Bible (Bible is considered what? Survey says? Guidelines for moral principles), you tend to see that significant portions (I'd think around 85-90%) are quite subjective, with "unchanging" truths that are far, far, far from unchanging. [quote]The idea of God as a merciless and unkind being in the Old Testament is utterly wrong and truly an uneducated assumption about the text. The God of the Old Testament isn?t any more ?wrathful? than Jesus. Sure, Jesus didn?t destroy a wicked city (a city that God, according to the Bible, could find not a single good person in)- but if you read his story, he did draw a solid moral line between a right and a wrong (the bankers in the temple, the temple leaders). He was sent to correct a message of forgiveness that had been perverted by the people before him, however.[/quote] I chopped a bit out here and there, because I wanted to isolate the crux of the issue. In the above excerpt, you essentially said that the vengeful, wrathful God of the OT is actually entirely incorrect, and any interpretation that leads to that conclusion is utterly wrong and truly an uneducated assumption about the text." But I say to you, look toward Exodus 20:5-6: [quote name='Bible.com']5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.[/quote] Sure, there's line 6 that shows love to a thousand generations of those who love God and keep His commandments, but what about line 5? Does that not seem just the least bit...mean-spirited? [i]God himself[/i] is saying he's jealous. For all intents and purposes, with the prominent characterization of Israel as God's wife...God is the suspicious, jealous, violent, sociopathic husband. The kind of husband who sets fire to villages he deems inappropriate for his wife to even talk with. OT God wasn't vengeful and wrathful? [quote]I don?t devote my life only because of Jesus? sacrifice. I don?t even devote it because I?m guilty of acting immorally sometimes. I devote my life to God because I believe that we were all created to share a truly personal relationship with God, both in this life and eternally with him in the next. Ask yourself why you feel guilty, Alex? Why are you asking the movie?s message to justify your guilt? Do you feel as if though you are on uncertain terms spritually? You took away the wrong message from that movie. Here?s the kicker: -We may all be guilty of a million things, but we are all forgiven if we [i]just[/i] ask for it.[/quote] In asking me those questions, you missed my point. lol. I didn't feel guilty at all. I felt pretty much nothing, apart from the sadness and melancholy from any tear-jerker. My point was that in the mainstream religiosity we see today...everybody is emphasizing the wrong things for the wrong reasons. I don't need to feel guilted during The Passion to know it's designed to be a guilt trip. [quote]Sociology is our friend in this matter. It?s true that many cultures have established moral guidelines besides the ones influenced by Christianity. But why are rules made? Because someone has broken them. And why did God send Moses the ten commandments? Because his people had and were going to break those rules. Because sometimes it takes more than a moral conscience to realize that adultery is wrong. Some people simply need to be told ?adultery is wrong?. And when I am asked why I am not a liar, I can reply, ?Because it wouldn?t be the right thing to do. I know this because it is written in his Word.? God help me, because the temptations of sex are great enough despite not being married. Sometimes God can act as the last moral witness, the last consideration before deciding not to do something- like lie, or steal. At least I have a guide.[/quote] But why need the Bible? I don't really think you've answered the question. If anything, I think you're more supporting my conclusion, that most of the Biblical scriptural rule-sets are outdated. Those ancient rules were necessitated because those ancient peoples lacked basic common sense and possessed a less than adequate cognition. Today, however, barring the monkeys on typewriters of local newspapers and nearly every single political/religious leader...I think our overall public cognition has improved tremendously. Regarding adultery...who needs the Bible to know it's a bad idea? If you cheat on your significant other, that person will be hurt, because he or she will feel there's something wrong with what he or she is doing, or that you don't respect him or her enough to remain loyal. Maintaining a healthy relationship does not require one to be religious. It requires one to be respectful and mature and generally, maintain a reasonable level of decency. [quote]Last time I checked, no one is worshipping Pokemon. It?s fine to like something, but not okay to worship it. And why would I stone a pokemon loving fanboy or try to snuff out the paraphernalia? I wouldn?t do that with a Wiccan, or a Muslim. Once again, you are really taking something you know very little about out of context.[/quote] The Idolatry clause: [quote name='Bible.com']4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.[/quote] Jordan, my point was that the Idolatry clause there is so vague that it can be applied to anything. And think back to 1999-2000. Remember that Pokemon craze? Where children were reported to be beating each other up over them? Stealing? Manipulating? Cheating? Seems to me that was their focus of attention, rather than behaving and honoring their parents, good values, etc. They were ignoring everything else in their lives and questing for that rare Mew Limited Edition Silver Lined Gold Pack card...a false idol. Think about that. There are a lot of rules in the OT we just don't go by anymore, including the punishments. Why do people still pick and choose then? Or why do people still say certain rules are still applicable when it's clear to me and most people that religion on the whole is largely outdated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nomad Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 [FONT=Verdana][SIZE=1]All right. As my first post back in, oh say five months, it's not really a smart move to come right back in and not read every page of this thread before posting, but it is about 4 in the morning here and I'm too tired to read through the whole thing. I promise you this, however, whenever I get some rest, I will return and read the other pages of this thread thoroughly, and make alterations to this post accordingly if there is a purpose to. Anyways, onto my post. Homosexuality is a concern for me. I don't care for it. I and a heterosexual male, 18 years old, have a girlfriend and love her and being straight. But that doesn't mean that my friend should be hated because his preference is for males. I have known him for 4 years, since about my freshman year in high school, and he came out about half way through the year sophomore year, and no one was 1.) really surprised/shocked and 2.) no one turned their backs on him, because they were true friends. I do not hate him because he's the way he is. I have come to the conclusion, over the last year or so, that whatever I do is cool for me, and whatever someone else does is cool for them. Far be it for me to interfere and disrespect someone for their preference, in any aspect of their lives, I say any aspect because of my next statement. I, myself, am a semi-strong Atheist, and for those of you who do not know what an Atheist is, it is someone who does not believe in any deity (god) of any kind, as opposed to Agnostics who have doubts about deities, and Theists who believe in one or more deities. Now, to trim down my talks about this subject (which I could go on forever about), I will say this. I do not hate you for being Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc. etc. If you believe in god, Christ, whatever, and you want to practice it to yourself and with peers and others who share your views and opinions, more power to you, but when I start to hate you is when you come to me, attacking me whenever I happen to metion that I am an Atheist, and whatever. But I digress, I'm starting to veer off topic. Now that I've stated that, I'm going to go back to why I said that. I am NOT a Christian or anything, so therefore no one, or thing, is telling me that any one person will go to hell, or suffer eternally, for being homosexual, or for not believing or whatever the case may be. This may help my choice to not dislike homosexuality. You are not evil for being like that, you are no different from me, or the next person, or anyone. You are human, and therefore deserve the rights that every human being is born with, and should have been born with for the past hundreds of years (women, African-Americans, Native Americans, etc). Speaking of being born, I do not believe that anyone is born gay, but learned. Not learned as in, "Johnny, at the age of 14, suddenly awoke one day to find himself attracted to the other boys in his grade.", not like that. I'm saying that at a early age, when your brain is developing, it develops in a way that influences how you think, and therefore how you will think in the future, and certain developments can, in a sense, teach you to be attracted to the same sex. This is just my opinion, and a tired one at that, so I'm sure there are flaws in it, and I'm sure not everyone will agree with me on this one, it is how I see it. Now, on to the last topic. Should men/women with a preference for the same sex be allowed to adopt children? Yes, if they are financially able, they should be. If they have the finances to support one another and to support another person in their household, they should be able to adopt. Who's to say that John and Robert wouldn't make good parents, or that Jennifer and Mary wouldn't be able to raise a son/daughter correctly without the influence of a male parent in the household. No one is. A homosexual couple is no different from a heterosexual couple (well, there are OBVIOUS differences, but it is infered that you already know them). There is usually one who has a more female mindset and there is usually one who has a more male mindset, and therefore, represent the balance between mother and father, IMO. I lied, one more paragraph and I'll be done with this for now. Homosexuals can be moral people, they can also be immoral. It is just a matter of how they were raised and how their mindset is. Just like everyone else (including Atheists, they can be moral, and usually are, by following their own code of moral ethics). I also believe that gay marriage should be legalized. It is not wrong or immoral, it is two human beings in love who wish to share the rest of their lives together, who are officially sanctioned and noticed by the government. Granted you don't need to have the "official" marriage, or license, if you wish not to have a marriage then you would rely on one another's trust to be together and with one another for the rest of your lives. Some of you are married, even have children, and are even devouted Christians/etc., and are in love with your significant other. Now just imagine that you were homosexual and in love with your SO who was of the same sex (I know it sounds weird to think about that, but just do it in a mature, "what if" manner). Wouldn't you want to be married with him/her if you love them like you love your current partner? Of course you would. Things would be different in certain aspects, of course, but the love would be the same. I don't see a problem between two people getting married who love each other with their heart and "soul", and who would want to spend their lives with each other. Those are my opinions and thoughts on the topics at hand. Granted I did type alot, but when I get passionate about something I tend to babble and carry on as if there was no end, but worry not, there is an end, and this is it. As I've stated previously, at the moment it is 4:24 AM so I am a bit tired, therefore this post may seem a bit off, but I've promised to return, read the rest of the pages and posts, and to edit accordingly to what I have said. I may have even put something that contradicted it self, multiple times even, but that's the tiredness taking effect. So, I shall return at a later time to make corrections and whatnot, and I apologize for not taking my time and reading through the thread, but my attention and capacity to keep track of what I'm doing is limited. -Nomad[/SIZE][/FONT] :animesmil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatsubei Yagyu Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 [COLOR=Navy][FONT=Comic Sans MS]Ok, I have only a couple of things to say about this because I usually get annoyed at people who dislike people just cause of what they are. In my opinion, it's just like the racism towards black people, me being the black guy. :p Though I also used the food metaphor in the "Meaning of Life" Thread, it's like hating a dude for liking biscuits instead of tacos. It just doesn't make any since. If you don't like gay people, then don't bother them and they won't bother you. It's not like they're forcing you to go to their weddings or something. Not that they have the RIGHT to freely express their believes. I mean, it's only AMERICA right? :animeangr Even if you're against gay marriage, or whatever, just know I still love you. [IMG]http://graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/template/smiles/icon_whee.gif[/IMG] [/FONT][/COLOR] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
different ki Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 [quote name='Nomad][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=1]Speaking of being born, I do not believe that anyone is born gay, but learned. Not learned as in, "Johnny, at the age of 14, suddenly awoke one day to find himself attracted to the other boys in his grade.", not like that. I'm saying that at a early age, when your brain is developing, it develops in a way that influences how you think, and therefore how you will think in the future, and certain developments can, in a sense, teach you to be attracted to the same sex. This is just my opinion, and a tired one at that, so I'm sure there are flaws in it, and I'm sure not everyone will agree with me on this one, it is how I see it.[/SIZE][/FONT'] :animesmil[/quote] I find that interesting... Can you explain more what you mean by how you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nomad Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 [quote name='different ki']I find that interesting... Can you explain more what you mean by how you think?[/quote] [SIZE=1][FONT=Verdana]lol, that does seem a bit farfetched doesn't it, well there's only one explaination for that, I was tired. What I think I was trying to convey was that you aren't born gay, straight, bi, as you aren't born Christian, Atheist, Jewish, you are simply born a human. From there on it's your pre-developed mindset that leads you to the decisions that you will later make and the paths that you will follow. During a young age, you may not think you're gay, but somewhere deep down you always did feel oddly attracted to other boys/girls in your class, but could never explain it. It's just a matter of preference, however you look at it. I think I'm tryng to say is that, you are not born gay, but rather just eventually develop that way, wether you realize it or not. It's something that affects you even before you have knowledge of the concepts of gay or straight, it's something that you already possess even before you "come out" to yourself, then to others. It's just a matter of preference, as I've already stated, that you develop over time of testing out the waters of what you do and don't like. I really hope that cleared it up a bit, but I confused myself a bit, so I don't think it'll make it any easier to figure out what I'm trying to say, but, heh. Sorry. :animeswea [/FONT][/SIZE] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boba Fett Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 [quote name='Drix D'Zanth']...the rights marriage does grant a couple doesn?t elevate them to a higher status as citizens. An unmarried person?s contribution to society is neither greater nor lesser than the bearing of a married person.[/quote] [color=green]So an unmarried man or woman in their sixties is treated no differently than a married person of the same age? There is definitely a social stigma attached ? especially to women ? to those who don?t marry. More importantly, married people are eligible for all sorts of government and private organization benefits that single persons cannot obtain. To discriminate against people of different genders applying for marriage is to deny them these benefits, and serves to further stigmatize them.[/color] [quote name='Drix D'Zanth']As far as discrimination is concerned, it is not an unjust discrimination. [/quote] [color=green]With regard to discrimination, your examples are of ?The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment,? while gay marriage falls into, ?Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice.?[/color] [quote name='Drix D'Zanth'] As far as a ?pretend? marriage is concerned, you should really ask yourself when you truly feel like you will have married that special person in your life. As far as I?m concerned, it will be at the alter, not the courthouse- I don?t need the government to tell me when I?m married.[/quote] [color=green]Then let the government marry whomever it pleases, if it is at the alter that marriage truly matters.[/color] [quote name='Drix D'Zanth]They want to take their private interpretation of marriage and [i]change[/i'] our public interpretation. They simply want to change the entire definition of marriage, which is why we aren?t debating civil unions or specific rights. Which is one of my biggest concerns- if it is fundamentally changed now, why not change marriage to accommodate everyone?s interpretation of what it means to be married?[/quote] [color=green]The definition of marriage wasn?t fundamentally changed with Vegas drive-through weddings? I?m going to leave this discussion on this: I think, Drix, we both agree that the government should stop marrying everyone and hand out civil unions to any people that want to be recognized in the eyes of the state as partners. Religious establishments can choose to marry whomever they please. ... or at least something roughly to that effect.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soliel Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 [color=green]These arguements on wether homosexuality and the like is born or learned reminded me of something a friend of mine passed on to me. If homosexuality is hereditary, then judging someone on that is like judging them on their race, something also beyond our control. But if it's a learned trait, then judging someone on that is like judging someone on their religion, something you have a free choice in. Eitherway, judging someone because they are homosexual is just wrong.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KKC Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 [size=1]I think that homosexuality is some times something you're born with and some times I think the person wasn't homosexual, but then became homosexual. My aunt is a teacher and was telling my mom that there is a 1st grader at her school who she thinks is someone who is born homosexual. When ever he gets the chance he takes the teachers purse and carries it around acting like a girl and he isn't like most of the other boys. Of course this doesn't prove that this little kid is homosexual. On the other hand... My sister is a music major in college. In music there are almost as many homosexuals as there are strait people. One of my sisters friends in high school was strait. You could just tell by the way he liked girls and stuff. But when he went to college someone kept on telling him he was gay and eventually he became homosexual. In this case I don't think he was born this way. I think maybe he was convinced... When it comes to celebrities I think they'll say they're gay for attention and stuff (accept for a few). I personally don't care wheather someone is gay or not. A know a few who are in my grade and they are all really nice. [/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zenriek Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 [QUOTE=Retribution][size=1]Hey, there ain't nothing wrong with hardcore Christians. There's nothing wrong with someone who really loves God -- there's something wrong with it when you become a Pharisee. Sodom and Gomorrah was Old Testament, and I really don't feel like reiterating what that means to a Christian... and I'm sure you know that while OT is important, the NT is what you should be paying a bit more attention to. As for whether people are born gay or become gay - who cares? Why does it matter? They're people. If that's the way they swing, then fine with me. Sure, I feel a bit uncomfortable when I see two gay guys kissing, but I'm not going to call them sinners. I'm also completely for same-sex marriage. Love is love. orbindo, you should understand that the United States of America has no national religion, therefore it is not right to push Christian teachings and beliefs upon those who may or may not share those values. They aren?t Christian, so why should they follow your Christian belief that it should not be allowed solely because it is ?sinful.? Jesus never crammed His teachings down his disciples? throats ? he taught them, encouraged them, and helped them. Never did he force them to ?pick up their cross? and follow Him. Their actions were entirely voluntary. What you?re doing is being a Pharisee ? you follow rules to the letter, overlooking the simple fact that they?re human, they love one another as a straight couple, and statistically stick together more than straight couples). You?re living in the past. Gay marriage is inevitable in the future ? the same was thought about segregation and religious freedom in America. One day, our children won?t be able to fathom times when gays were unable to marry freely.[/size][/QUOTE] And... you've already said it all for me. I agree full-heartedly. Someday, our kids won't even know what a tape is. Nor why we would condemn homosexuality. Or what the hell we were thinking when we put innocent people into slavery so many years ago. I support gays fully. Gay marriage, love is love, if they are going to go through with it, love each other 'till death, what's wrong with that? That's marriage. Nobody should interfere with that. As said, church and government are supposed to stay apart. What right does the government have to get rid of same-sex marriages? The gay thing, I think, is a preferance. Why do we like some foods over others? One personality type next to another? It's preferance. And as for the adoption thing. As long as they have money for support, aren't drug-addicts or anything like that, they have just as much right as anyone to adopt a kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drix D'Zanth Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Yes, as much merit there may be to a discussion of the Bible it?s relevance to the discussion at hand is degenerating. The problem our discussion is going to have is that we view the bible from different perspectives. I see it as a truthful, factual text, written by people under the direction of God. You see it as a subjective, flawed text, written by tribal leaders of an age both passed and morally outdated. It doesn?t really matter how other people look at the Bible, nor how much they attempt to convince me that it is [i]wrong[/i]. I have faith that even though the text may have been misinterpreted by its followers, and some of it has been lost, the Bible we have is sufficient and intended by God. As far as verses are concerned, homosexuality is adequately covered for me to make a decision that it is (according to me) immoral. [QUOTE=Brasil]Oh, no worries. I shant be staying long, because Guild Wars calls me. Probably this reply and that's it from me. The number crunch came from me, actually. Jordan, dearest, do you really think I'd be having this discussion (and proposing this thesis) if I hadn't familiarized myself with the Bible, read it extensively, etc? Go through the Bible and find the actual truth, and make sure it merely isn't ideological discourse. For example, stories about unyielding faith are entirely subjective; they do not utilize unchanging truths. Recommitting to God's path, also subjective. [/QUOTE] Once again, you are taking the entire text subjectively. When God talks about how one should have ?faith? or how one should ?pray?. It seems laid out simply and easily. Your idea of actual truth is ?understandably? some sort of objective fact (time, place, date, and artifact) that we can point to. When Jesus came to earth he didn?t carve his name into a rock. He didn?t establish a government. Hell, he didn?t even seem to have written a single thing down. He spoke on metaphysical things: grace, forgiveness, love, justice; intangible things. I hold ideas like forgiveness, sin, and God as just as true as the keyboard I type on. I don?t expect anyone who doesn?t have faith to really understand this. [QUOTE=Brasil] I'll tell you what [i]is[/i] an objective, unchanging truth in the Bible: that there once may have been two cities in the ancient Middle East that were engulfed in what some archaeologists believe could have been a massive subterranean gas reservoir ignition spurned on by an earthquake. When there's mention of environmental disasters (fires, floods, etc), that's usually a key that something actually happened. All else is basically ideological conjecture. The rules, subjective and conjecture. The discourse on love, money, etc., primarily subjective ideologies. [/QUOTE] That?s interesting. How is your example of an ?unchanging truth? any less based on conjecture than mine? We have a certain amount of evidence to draw your conclusion? We don?t really have any ?proof? however, do we? There?s a possibility that we may have discovered the ancient city of Troy (which was supposed to be completely demolished in the legend, I believe). Does that mean Achilles was practically invulnerable and that the Illiad is true? Probably not, but I respect the ancient Greek?s right to believe in their mythology. I?ll disagree, but I can?t expect to really understand their faith- I?m going to look at their text from a different perspective. [QUOTE=Brasil] When you really look at the stories in there...not much is actual truth. When you really examine the stories within the framework of the Bible (Bible is considered what? Survey says? Guidelines for moral principles), you tend to see that significant portions (I'd think around 85-90%) are quite subjective, with "unchanging" truths that are far, far, far from unchanging. [/QUOTE] In the Bible it is written that God spoke to Moses and instructed him in the creation of the Ten Commandments. The morals of these commandments are relatively subjective. Some people find no moral qualm in killing someone, or lying. However, when I claim that the Bible is objective and unchanging- I mean that murder is wrong. There isn?t debate or discussion. There isn?t a grey area here, it says in the Bible that murder is wrong. This doesn?t change with the passage of time, the translation of the bible, or how I would [i]like[/i] to interpret it. [QUOTE=Brasil] I chopped a bit out here and there, because I wanted to isolate the crux of the issue. In the above excerpt, you essentially said that the vengeful, wrathful God of the OT is actually entirely incorrect, and any interpretation that leads to that conclusion is utterly wrong and truly an uneducated assumption about the text." But I say to you, look toward Exodus 20:5-6: [color=red](for some reason this verse didn?t copy it, but I know it)[/color] Sure, there's line 6 that shows love to a thousand generations of those who love God and keep His commandments, but what about line 5? Does that not seem just the least bit...mean-spirited? [i]God himself[/i] is saying he's jealous. For all intents and purposes, with the prominent characterization of Israel as God's wife...God is the suspicious, jealous, violent, sociopathic husband. The kind of husband who sets fire to villages he deems inappropriate for his wife to even talk with. OT God wasn't vengeful and wrathful?[/QUOTE] Once again, you are taking scripture out of context. If anything, you are supporting my argument that the God of the OT and NT are one in the same! This is a scripture that explains how much he wants to have a personal relationship with each of his creations! The analogy between curse and blessings shows me that his blessings are a thousand fold of his curses! Think about it, for a God who has (rightfully) judged and destroyed some, he has the capability to [i]bless[/i] us with so much more! Now, as far as God being jealous? Well the verse pretty much explains it: he yearns for us to choose him, but he will [b]not[/b] force us to choose him. And we will be held accountable for our actions. [QUOTE=Brasil] But why need the Bible? I don't really think you've answered the question. If anything, I think you're more supporting my conclusion, that most of the Biblical scriptural rule-sets are outdated. Those ancient rules were necessitated because those ancient peoples lacked basic common sense and possessed a less than adequate cognition. Today, however, barring the monkeys on typewriters of local newspapers and nearly every single political/religious leader...I think our overall public cognition has improved tremendously. Regarding adultery...who needs the Bible to know it's a bad idea? If you cheat on your significant other, that person will be hurt, because he or she will feel there's something wrong with what he or she is doing, or that you don't respect him or her enough to remain loyal. Maintaining a healthy relationship does not require one to be religious. It requires one to be respectful and mature and generally, maintain a reasonable level of decency.[/quote] Because common sense pits one man?s will against another. There isn?t a right or a wrong- whoever has the muscle calls the shots. Killing someone or committing adultery seems immoral to you or I because we understand the consequences of the actions. We both know that it is the wrong thing to do! But other people feel differently, murderers feel differently. Whole societies have historically thought differently. Common knowledge really isn?t all that common unless the society has an established moral foundation. Historically, that moral foundation was a Judeo-Christian philosophy in our country. Don?t get me wrong, I?m not saying that our country is a Christian state, but it certainly was built on some Christian principles. Why? Because pretty much everyone who lived here [i]were[/i] Christians. [QUOTE=Brasil] The Idolatry clause: [color=red](likewise)[/color] Jordan, my point was that the Idolatry clause there is so vague that it can be applied to anything. And think back to 1999-2000. Remember that Pokemon craze? Where children were reported to be beating each other up over them? Stealing? Manipulating? Cheating? Seems to me that was their focus of attention, rather than behaving and honoring their parents, good values, etc. They were ignoring everything else in their lives and questing for that rare Mew Limited Edition Silver Lined Gold Pack card...a false idol. Think about that. There are a lot of rules in the OT we just don't go by anymore, including the punishments. Why do people still pick and choose then? Or why do people still say certain rules are still applicable when it's clear to me and most people that religion on the whole is largely outdated?[/QUOTE] Often scripture mentions when rules are no longer applicable (for instance, Christians can eat pork) or when rules are misunderstood (?eye for an eye? was to prevent taking both eyes or all teeth for a single crime. It was a verse about just punishment). I think when you look at it, Christians shouldn?t have a problem with the gay community. I don?t, they are no worse than any sinner. But I understand that not only is biologically abhorrent, I consider it immoral behavior. Privately, we have the liberty to do anything that doesn?t infringe or affect the lives of others. However, gay marriage is a public issue. This?ll probably be the last I speak on the Bible in this thread, as it?s moving far off topic. [QUOTE=Boba Fett][color=green]So an unmarried man or woman in their sixties is treated no differently than a married person of the same age? There is definitely a social stigma attached ? especially to women ? to those who don?t marry. More importantly, married people are eligible for all sorts of government and private organization benefits that single persons cannot obtain. To discriminate against people of different genders applying for marriage is to deny them these benefits, and serves to further stigmatize them.[/color] [/QUOTE] The social stigma that people make for marriage is not going to change by changing marriage to include new parties. As for the benefits of marriage, I wrote earlier that I have no problem letting anybody share certain rights (such as hospital visitation) and [i]do[/i] through power of attorney. But if we aren?t to discriminate between a heterosexual union and homosexual union, how can we justify making any discriminations in the future? One benefit of marriage is the transfer of assets. If a husband dies, he can give up to 1.5 million (depending on state laws, I?m speaking for my own) tax free to be inherited by his spouse. A gay couple, even with an attorney cannot do this- their assets are taxed from the first cent. Now, it seems like this isn?t fair. So let?s hypothetically remove this restriction from homosexual couples? I might not get married, but I?d like my best friend to have my money, so why don?t I get a civil union with him? But he does want to get married. Oh, who?s discriminating? He can go ahead and get married to his wife and we?ll keep the civil union! Maybe if my wife dies, I?ll have a civil union with my children so I can share the benefits of marriage with them? Why not my sister? Why not my college roomie? If you don?t want any discrimination, Dave, then all bets are off. There?s no valid reason to allow homosexuals these rights and not other (more controversial *gasp*) groups. Let?s take a gander at NAMBLA.org. Read some of the stories on the website. There are some men who can?t have sex unless it is with a ?boy?. Why shouldn?t they be granted civil unions with their loved one? Read the ?boy?s account?- does it sound like these are physically, emotionally abused children? Sounds to me like we have to mutually loving people who simply have a more unconventional relationship. Why shouldn?t they get married? [QUOTE=Boba Fett] [color=green]With regard to discrimination, your examples are of ?The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment,? while gay marriage falls into, ?Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice.?[/color] [/QUOTE] There isn?t a prejudice here, there?s no civil policy to treat gay couples any worse than heterosexual couples. It is simply the preservation of what I, and the majority our democratic nation see as what constitutes to marriage. [QUOTE=Boba Fett] [color=green]Then let the government marry whomever it pleases, if it is at the alter that marriage truly matters.[/color] [/QUOTE] I agree, it is the alter where I?ll consider myself spiritually married. [QUOTE=Boba Fett] [color=green]The definition of marriage wasn?t fundamentally changed with Vegas drive-through weddings?[/color] [/QUOTE] I can?t really control whether or not a man and woman get married for the right reasons. I can?t control that without restricting marriage for those who [i]are[/i] getting married for the right reasons. I [b]can[/b] prevent a further devolution of marriage. Seeing the newest post?ees, I can see that this discussion really isn?t being added to much more than people cut-and-pasting their own opinions without responding to where the discussion has already gone (I?m looking at you KKC and Zenriek). So, I think this might be a good time for me to let the discussion die down unless someone decides to quote me, asks me to reply, or I see something simply too outrageous to ignore. It?s been good debating both Dave and Alex. He really should have the last word, though: [QUOTE=Boba Fett] [color=green] I?m going to leave this discussion on this: I think, Drix, we both agree that the government should stop marrying everyone and hand out civil unions to any people that want to be recognized in the eyes of the state as partners. Religious establishments can choose to marry whomever they please. ... or at least something roughly to that effect.[/color][/QUOTE] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shinji172 Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 I just want to elaborate on a point you made in your last post. You use some of the texts on NAMBLA.org. I can see your point of view as, in [I]some[/I(this being the key word)] of the texts i looked at, tries to justify sex at a young age. among other things it says... [QUOTE]Children are people. Some children have good ideas and others don't. Children are human. Age is an irrelevant factor in the ability to comprehend rationally.[/QUOTE]. If this was an attempt to lower the consent law for homosexuals to "express themselves" I.E. from 21 to 18-the same age as for hetrosexual couples (this statistic varies) then i would probably agree. As far as im concerned, hetro/homosexual couples deserve the same rights. However, when the party involved is [B]twelve years old[/B] (if anyone doesnt believe me check the site) we begin to enter the relm of the pedophilia. As we all know, that is very wrong. However, you are also making the assumption that all homosexuals are pedophiles. I now you to this info (fromhttp://www.answers.com/topic/pedophilia)... [QUOTE] Pedophiles are almost always males. The children are more often of the opposite sex (about twice as often) and are typically 13 years or age or younger[/QUOTE] As the info shows, there are more hetrosexual pedophiles than homosexual. for this reason, i find your view, which seems to be condeming all homosexuals as pedophiles to be very short sighted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
different ki Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 [quote name='KKC][size=1']My aunt is a teacher and was telling my mom that there is a 1st grader at her school who she thinks is someone who is born homosexual. When ever he gets the chance he takes the teachers purse and carries it around acting like a girl and he isn't like most of the other boys. Of course this doesn't prove that this little kid is homosexual. [/size][/quote] That sounds like transsexual behaviour, not homosexual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drix D'Zanth Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 [QUOTE=shinji172]I just want to elaborate on a point you made in your last post. You use some of the texts on NAMBLA.org. I can see your point of view as, in [I]some[/I(this being the key word)] of the texts i looked at, tries to justify sex at a young age. among other things it says... If this was an attempt to lower the consent law for homosexuals to "express themselves" I.E. from 21 to 18-the same age as for hetrosexual couples (this statistic varies) then i would probably agree. As far as im concerned, hetro/homosexual couples deserve the same rights. However, when the party involved is [B]twelve years old[/B] (if anyone doesnt believe me check the site) we begin to enter the relm of the pedophilia. As we all know, that is very wrong. [/QUOTE] That?s because the members of NAMBLA [i]are[/i] pedophiles! You say pedophilia is very wrong. How do you justify that claim? (Obviously, I?m playing devil?s advocate here) I want you to look at this from a moral perspective for a moment, why do you think the pedophiles of NAMBLA are ?wrong?? Is it a gut feeling? Because it sounds like their man-boy relationships are mutual and consensual. Can you justify calling their private behavior wrong? If so please, give us a reason. Now, if you [i]can?t[/i] prove to me that it is ethically immoral, and you expect the institution of marriage to no longer discriminate between heterosexual unions and homosexual marriages- why can we expect the definition of marriage to discriminate against [i]any[/i] relationship- such as the pedophilic relationship of NAMBLA? Why shouldn?t [i]they[/i] be allowed to get married? [QUOTE=shinji172] However, you are also making the assumption that all homosexuals are pedophiles. I now you to this info (fromhttp://www.answers.com/topic/pedophilia)... As the info shows, there are more hetrosexual pedophiles than homosexual. for this reason, i find your view, which seems to be condeming all homosexuals as pedophiles to be very short sighted.[/QUOTE] I?m not making any assumptions. I never said homosexuals are pedophiles, lol. You drew that conclusion from an [i]analogy[/i] which deals with the ethical issue, not the technical details. Yeah? wasn?t saying that homosexuals are pedophiles? lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brasil Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 [QUOTE=Drix D'Zanth] The social stigma that people make for marriage is not going to change by changing marriage to include new parties. As for the benefits of marriage, I wrote earlier that I have no problem letting anybody share certain rights (such as hospital visitation) and [i]do[/i] through power of attorney. But if we aren?t to discriminate between a heterosexual union and homosexual union, how can we justify making any discriminations in the future? One benefit of marriage is the transfer of assets. If a husband dies, he can give up to 1.5 million (depending on state laws, I?m speaking for my own) tax free to be inherited by his spouse. A gay couple, even with an attorney cannot do this- their assets are taxed from the first cent. Now, it seems like this isn?t fair. So let?s hypothetically remove this restriction from homosexual couples? I might not get married, but I?d like my best friend to have my money, so why don?t I get a civil union with him? But he does want to get married. Oh, who?s discriminating? He can go ahead and get married to his wife and we?ll keep the civil union! Maybe if my wife dies, I?ll have a civil union with my children so I can share the benefits of marriage with them? Why not my sister? Why not my college roomie? If you don?t want any discrimination, Dave, then all bets are off. There?s no valid reason to allow homosexuals these rights and not other (more controversial *gasp*) groups. Let?s take a gander at NAMBLA.org. Read some of the stories on the website. There are some men who can?t have sex unless it is with a ?boy?. Why shouldn?t they be granted civil unions with their loved one? Read the ?boy?s account?- does it sound like these are physically, emotionally abused children? Sounds to me like we have to mutually loving people who simply have a more unconventional relationship. Why shouldn?t they get married? There isn?t a prejudice here, there?s no civil policy to treat gay couples any worse than heterosexual couples. It is simply the preservation of what I, and the majority our democratic nation see as what constitutes to marriage. I agree, it is the alter where I?ll consider myself spiritually married. I can?t really control whether or not a man and woman get married for the right reasons. I can?t control that without restricting marriage for those who [i]are[/i] getting married for the right reasons. I [b]can[/b] prevent a further devolution of marriage. That?s because the members of NAMBLA [i]are[/i] pedophiles! You say pedophilia is very wrong. How do you justify that claim? (Obviously, I?m playing devil?s advocate here) I want you to look at this from a moral perspective for a moment, why do you think the pedophiles of NAMBLA are ?wrong?? Is it a gut feeling? Because it sounds like their man-boy relationships are mutual and consensual. Can you justify calling their private behavior wrong? If so please, give us a reason. Now, if you [i]can?t[/i] prove to me that it is ethically immoral, and you expect the institution of marriage to no longer discriminate between heterosexual unions and homosexual marriages- why can we expect the definition of marriage to discriminate against [i]any[/i] relationship- such as the pedophilic relationship of NAMBLA? Why shouldn?t [i]they[/i] be allowed to get married? I?m not making any assumptions. I never said homosexuals are pedophiles, lol. You drew that conclusion from an [i]analogy[/i] which deals with the ethical issue, not the technical details. Yeah? wasn?t saying that homosexuals are pedophiles? lol.[/QUOTE] Jordan, because I'm laughing so hard right now, I feel it is now time to reveal one of my favorite images of all-time (and one I made personally). It seems rather appropriate, given your rebuttal above. [center][URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/5060/evilspock9nr.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [/center] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now